Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Revenue can be replaced and they had a massive windfall this year because they got voters to revoke the property tax cap. The real reason is that they prefer MCGEO to whatever union would represent private sector warehouse workers and drivers.

I understand the problem in your lack of understanding is because you don’t understand how bonds work.

They can retire that debt, refinance it, or a combination.

That’s not how secured bonds work. Privatizing ABS would result in a condition of default which would lead to an obligation to immediately repay bond holders. The default would then affect the county’s credit rating.

Please learn something before sharing bad ideas. Thanks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this new council isn't as tight as other sin the past. with that said, the single largest income the county has is from that department.

Isn't it like $30 million out of a county budget of more than $6 billion? So less than half of a percent. And of course getting rid of the monopoly would stimulate untold economic activity and tax from new restaurant and retail sales.

Yeah I found that statement odd and checked, FY21 it was 97 million in revenue against 29 million in expenditures.

PP here. I'm getting the $30 million figure directly from an ABS marketing video so I assume it's in the right ballpark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i9YrrGmCBE&list=TLGGXfMCCL7QPjIyMDEyMjAyMg&t=166s

"During the past decade, ABS has generated an average of 30 million dollars each year, which is transferred to Montgomery County’s general fund."

Sorry that 29 million was a typo, should have said 69 million. I was agreeing with you about the amount of revenue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Revenue can be replaced and they had a massive windfall this year because they got voters to revoke the property tax cap. The real reason is that they prefer MCGEO to whatever union would represent private sector warehouse workers and drivers.

I understand the problem in your lack of understanding is because you don’t understand how bonds work.

They can retire that debt, refinance it, or a combination.

Which which money?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Revenue can be replaced and they had a massive windfall this year because they got voters to revoke the property tax cap. The real reason is that they prefer MCGEO to whatever union would represent private sector warehouse workers and drivers.

I understand the problem in your lack of understanding is because you don’t understand how bonds work.

They can retire that debt, refinance it, or a combination.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Revenue can be replaced and they had a massive windfall this year because they got voters to revoke the property tax cap. The real reason is that they prefer MCGEO to whatever union would represent private sector warehouse workers and drivers.

I understand the problem in your lack of understanding is because you don’t understand how bonds work.

It’s funny how many people have opinions on things that they don’t bother to conduct basic research.

“ Over the last years the County has issued more than $100 million in Local liquor bonds, pledged to be paid for by County liquor revenue. These bonds have supported important County road and infrastructure projects.

Under the privatization scheme proposed the County would be in violation of our bond obligations and would have to replace or repay the bond holders using other county resources since the ongoing revenue supporting those bonds would no longer exist. Not only would this $100 million impact negatively the County’s capital spending on other projects, it would also hurt the County’s bond rating, potentially increasing County costs in the future.”
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/local-liquor-control/

Anonymous wrote:Revenue can be replaced and they had a massive windfall this year because they got voters to revoke the property tax cap. The real reason is that they prefer MCGEO to whatever union would represent private sector warehouse workers and drivers.

I understand the problem in your lack of understanding is because you don’t understand how bonds work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this new council isn't as tight as other sin the past. with that said, the single largest income the county has is from that department.

Isn't it like $30 million out of a county budget of more than $6 billion? So less than half of a percent. And of course getting rid of the monopoly would stimulate untold economic activity and tax from new restaurant and retail sales.

Yeah I found that statement odd and checked, FY21 it was 97 million in revenue against 29 million in expenditures.

PP here. I'm getting the $30 million figure directly from an ABS marketing video so I assume it's in the right ballpark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i9YrrGmCBE&list=TLGGXfMCCL7QPjIyMDEyMjAyMg&t=166s

"During the past decade, ABS has generated an average of 30 million dollars each year, which is transferred to Montgomery County’s general fund."

Revenue can be replaced and they had a massive windfall this year because they got voters to revoke the property tax cap. The real reason is that they prefer MCGEO to whatever union would represent private sector warehouse workers and drivers.

Didn’t they lose 2 or 3 million a couple of years ago?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this new council isn't as tight as other sin the past. with that said, the single largest income the county has is from that department.

Isn't it like $30 million out of a county budget of more than $6 billion? So less than half of a percent. And of course getting rid of the monopoly would stimulate untold economic activity and tax from new restaurant and retail sales.

Yeah I found that statement odd and checked, FY21 it was 97 million in revenue against 29 million in expenditures.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this new council isn't as tight as other sin the past. with that said, the single largest income the county has is from that department.

Isn't it like $30 million out of a county budget of more than $6 billion? So less than half of a percent. And of course getting rid of the monopoly would stimulate untold economic activity and tax from new restaurant and retail sales.

That $30m represents $300m in GO bonds. So it’s extremely important to county finances.

Andrew Friedson’s political patron was Peter Franchot whose was backed by David Trone. So of course Friedson favors it.

The main reason why reform is hard is because the alcohol revenue is already bonded. Additionally, most projections indicate that privatization would actually decrease revenue to the county, unless people started consuming alcohol in quantities that would impact health, safety and quality of life.

Anonymous wrote:this new council isn't as tight as other sin the past. with that said, the single largest income the county has is from that department.

Isn't it like $30 million out of a county budget of more than $6 billion? So less than half of a percent. And of course getting rid of the monopoly would stimulate untold economic activity and tax from new restaurant and retail sales.

this new council isn't as tight as other sin the past. with that said, the single largest income the county has is from that department.

The Liquor Control Board rebranded itself as Alcohol Beverage Services a few years ago.

Regardless, here we are in 2022 and the monopoly persists. Why?

Councilmember Friedson (Council VP) is in favor of reform, and Councilmember Glass (Council President) is, too:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/time-to-end-montgomery-countys-alcohol-monopoly/2014/04/25/68beb01c-cb1f-11e3-a75e-463587891b57_story.html

https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/06/07/montgomery-county-liquor-laws-monopoly-maryland-alcohol-distribution/

So is it just a matter of getting another four councilmembers on board? Is the rest of the council actually against reform, or what?